10 ms·

I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war

by gershy 2y ago

I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable. But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time. Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?

KittenInABox 2y ago
I guarantee you that Russia could've been reasoned with if it was forced to face Ukraine with the full might of US support for another 4 years. Maybe there would need to be some concessions so Putin can look like he came out with a win to the Russian media, but Putin wouldn't have kept going as he was.
- gedy 2y ago
  > with the full might of US support Wasn't the time for that 3 years ago (or 11)? I'm not pro Russia, but a war of attrition has always seemed a bad play and half-assed. Especially when Europe is still buying gas from Russia...
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    As opposed to what alternative? A full-scale NATO invasion of Russia? Nuclear war? The West has gone to great lengths to provide the absolute minimum response to Russia's invasion (no troops, even withholding certain weapons classes) and leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the danger of an outright Russian collapse. Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.
    - motorest 2y ago
      > Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal. True, but the collective West would do much better if the volume of support allowed Ukraine to furtherincrease Russia's attrition rate. Knocking down the Crimean bridge alone would wreak havoc to Crimea's logistics.
michpoch 2y ago
> Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, Allow for long-distance strikes, allow for usage of Starlink without gps limits, send modern equipment. Russian army is barely moving forward even though UA has one of its arm tied on the back.
codedokode 2y ago
In theory West could offer something in exchange for peace, so that Russia will not want to break it, for example: withdrawing NATO forces from Eastern Europe, withdrawing nuclear weapon from Europe, lifting sanctions, paying a compensation for losses due to sanctions etc. There is actually a whole spectrum of options for negotiations.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  All these suggestions seem comically unsound. Eastern Europe contains many NATO countries, and many European countries feel an increased rather than decreased need for nuclear weapons. Compensation for losses due to sanctions would also effectively legitimize the war, as if though Russia were in the right. Lifting sanctions could maybe be done, if Russia actually left Ukraine entirely, including Crimea. I think what's really interesting at the moment, at least to me as a European, is a proper war where we simply go in and pound the Russian positions in Ukraine with bombers, strike all sorts of factories, plants, gas conduits, electrical infrastructure etc., in Russia so as to ensure a reasonable outcome. This is a very large and difficult to defend country, relative to its population. The Russians are incredibly vulnerable and increasing the violence level to something more appropriate is the going to be the only alternative. We're planning to borrow money to get weapons. This will be interesting, considering today's interest rates. I think it might be we who must be given something that we can agree is some kind of 'win', rather than the Russians, if the world is to be orderly.
- KiwiJohnno 2y ago
  The problem is any of those things are effectively a reward for Russia for starting the war and invading Ukraine in the first place. Why should Russia get any advantage out of the war that they 100% started?? And pay them compensation! What a suggestion! Russia is a bully. What do you think will happen if we have to pay the bully off each time they start smashing up their neighbors stuff up or just making threats? And as for withdrawing NATO forces - NATO is a purely defensive organization. Its purpose is to defend against just the sort of shit Russia has pulled with Ukraine. If Ukraine was part of NATO the war would not have happened. NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has been, never will be. This is equivalent to a local crime lord complaining about being threatened by the police station down the road and demanding that the police station shuts down.
motorest 2y ago
> I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, (...) Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country? > and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable. All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave. Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base. Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources. > But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  > Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country? Logistics (Ukraine shares a large border with Russia) and people - the people in currently occupied Ukraine aren't as against Russia as those in Afghanistan may be. Even now, we don't really see much of sabotage. > All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave. And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning. > Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base. While losing hundred of thousands of young men and decimating their population. Russia has more men. They can stand a war of attrition a lot longer - and they value soldier's lives less than we do in the west. > Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources. Similarly, Ukraine is kidnapping people on the streets to send them to the front lines.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    Collective defense was always an option. It's not like anyone has the appetite for that, but it's not hard as such to kick Russia out of Ukraine.
    - ponector 2y ago
audunw 2y ago
Of course they can defeat Russia, if they’re tenacious enough. Just look at Afghanistan (against both Russia and USA). If the costs ends up being too high, eventually the attacker loses the will to continue the fight. Russia is running out of equipment. What they have left is in an increasingly bad state. Ukraine’s recent strategy of targeting refineries is working fairly well. Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones.
- engineer_22 2y ago
  > Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones Source?
  - kosten 2y ago
    https://youtu.be/8huHGfY4xYQ?si=VSbvGTVjb2N-qsGq https://youtu.be/8huHGfY4xYQ?si=VSbvGTVjb2N-qsGq
- codedokode 2y ago
  Afghanistan is an awful example because there was a large number of civilians dead as a result (many times more that foreign soldiers), country having to live through several devastating wars, poverty, and a terrorist group became the government in the end. This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine.
  - charlysl 2y ago
    The Taliban are not a terrorist group, awful as they are
  - senordevnyc 2y ago
    So the Afghans should have just rolled over for Russia? I wonder if they’d agree.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine. The only reason Ukraine is yet to be as worse for civilians as Afghanistan is the fact that Ukraine successfully routed and defeated Russia's initial invasion push. Look at Bucha to see a real world example of what expects Ukraine if they capitulate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
kranke155 2y ago
It can be (locally) defeated. You can defeat it in wars of choosing, not in a war of annihilation (as Napoleon and others have learnt). But in Crimea? Or the Russo-Japanese War? Or WW1? Whenever the stakes are less than existential, superpowers lose. Saying Russia can't lose is just defeatism. With a few dozen F35s and better capabilities and ammunition, Ukraine would likely have won this war already.
csdreamer7 2y ago
> Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do? Russia can be easily defeated; especially at this point. Their armies are demoralized, their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys), and their budget is running out. The only reason they do not crumble is their sheer size against Ukraine. They would easily be wiped out by a more modern western military. Conservatives in the US now like Russia because they ban LGBT and Europe does not want to pay for a likely 2 year attack and show of force. And don't talk to me about using nuclear weapons against the west. Russia won't use them. They haven't use them for 3 years despite threats to the west if they don't stop funding Ukraine. The second they use them against the west; the west uses them right back. All the money, power, and influence the elites have in Russia disappears. They won't let Putin launch them.
- giardini 2y ago
  ...their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys)... I protest: donkeys are NOT terrible! In fact donkeys are absolutely one of the best means of transport in the Ukraine conflict: donkeys maintain themselves, are loyal to their trainers and are reliable. If you allow them to guide themselves, they will almost always move you away from regions of conflict (i.e., they are self-guided and smart). Furthermore donkeys are by their nature not instruments of war: there are no "attack donkeys" in this or other conflicts. Donkeys are animals of peace. Free a donkey today: send cash to Free the Donkeys 123-rt45 Doskilvi via Kyiv, UKRAINE 79013 (just kidding, but wish I weren't)
justin66 2y ago
> Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory This is only true if we keep Ukraine in an undersupplied state.
ponector 2y ago
Russia cannot be defeated - it is a Putin narrative. Russian has been defeated many times in history. Even in this war Russian lost few battles, lost control of few cities. In fact they are so powerful army, they are using civil vehicles and motorcycle as infantry vehicles for assault. Tanks made in Stalin's era also used. Even donkeys are used for logistics! Cannot be defeated? True, if western countries restrict usage of their weapons against Russian army.
rayiner 2y ago
> I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time. What makes you think that? Historically, Ukraine has been conquered by various countries in the region (Russia, Poland, Lithuania) because of its strategic location. Clearly, western europe doesn’t think that’s true judging by their defense spending.
- zippothrowaway 2y ago
  > What makes you think that? Becasue Putin has openly talked about how Latvia and Moldova, for example, are part of Russia.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    But there’s geographical limits to expansion based on that principle, right? It wouldn’t affect any place that directly affects America? Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care?
    - throw16180339 2y ago
      > Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care? India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. If a conflict between them escalates, then even a limited nuclear exchange would lead to tens of millions of casualties, mass starvation, widespread electronic outages, and releasing millions of tons of black smoke into the atmosphere; crop yields worldwide would be severely reduced. There have been a few studies on a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although as you'd expect, they're mostly from antinuclear advocacy groups. There are many unknown factors and a wide range of estimates, so I'd take all numbers with a grain of salt. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616796/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616796/ https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/two-billion-at-risk.pdf https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/two-billion-at-ri... There's also an active National Academies study on the environmental effects of nuclear war (https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/independent-study-on-potential-environmental-effects-of-nuclear-war https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/independent-study...), although they haven't released anything yet.
giardini 2y ago
We've burned up Russia's military equipment, we've killed and wounded thousands of Russian soldiers, all ostensibly w/o sending a single USA soldier into combat. The neocons have drained off Russia's conventional firepower and male population for a generation by merely poking the bear repeatedly. The Russians can claim victory but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Russia is now militarily a hollow shell, except for nukes. They're like North Korea but they eat better (they always did, though). Neither of those nations could engage the USA in a conventional conflict for longer than a half hour. This is sometimes termed "victory" or "success", and I don't think its a bad outcome. Of course you can imagine fairy tales where the Russians are abjectly defeated and humiliated and such fairy tales would give you more happy Social Media discussions. But such viewpoints also cause multi-generational problems in peoples of Slavic mindsets who view history as a list of wrongs against their ancestors going back centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/3-years-later-what-russias-aggression-ukraine-has-cost-it-and-what-its-gained https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/3-years-later...
- timka 2y ago
  Here's an excerpt from The The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters Volume 53, Number 3 (2023) Autumn [1] The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries. With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same number of casualties in two weeks. [1] https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3240&context=parameters https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
- timka 2y ago
  And another one: The Russia-Ukraine War makes it clear that the electromagnetic signature emitted from the command posts of the past 20 years cannot survive against the pace and precision of an adversary who possesses sensor-based technologies, electronic warfare, and unmanned aerial systems or has access to satellite imagery; this includes nearly every state or nonstate actor the United States might find itself fighting in the near future. The Army must focus on developing command-and-control systems and mobile command posts that enable continuous movement, allow distributed collaboration, and synchronize across all warfighting functions to minimize electronic signature. Ukrainian battalion command posts reportedly consist of seven soldiers who dig in and jump twice daily; while that standard will be hard for the US Army to achieve, it points in a very different direction than the one we have been following for two decades of hardened command posts
whoitwas 2y ago
Can't be defeated? Are you a Russian bot?

by gershy 2y ago

KittenInABox 2y ago

I guarantee you that Russia could've been reasoned with if it was forced to face Ukraine with the full might of US support for another 4 years. Maybe there would need to be some concessions so Putin can look like he came out with a win to the Russian media, but Putin wouldn't have kept going as he was.

gedy 2y ago
> with the full might of US support Wasn't the time for that 3 years ago (or 11)? I'm not pro Russia, but a war of attrition has always seemed a bad play and half-assed. Especially when Europe is still buying gas from Russia...
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  As opposed to what alternative? A full-scale NATO invasion of Russia? Nuclear war? The West has gone to great lengths to provide the absolute minimum response to Russia's invasion (no troops, even withholding certain weapons classes) and leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the danger of an outright Russian collapse. Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal. True, but the collective West would do much better if the volume of support allowed Ukraine to furtherincrease Russia's attrition rate. Knocking down the Crimean bridge alone would wreak havoc to Crimea's logistics.

michpoch 2y ago

> Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, Allow for long-distance strikes, allow for usage of Starlink without gps limits, send modern equipment. Russian army is barely moving forward even though UA has one of its arm tied on the back.

codedokode 2y ago

In theory West could offer something in exchange for peace, so that Russia will not want to break it, for example: withdrawing NATO forces from Eastern Europe, withdrawing nuclear weapon from Europe, lifting sanctions, paying a compensation for losses due to sanctions etc. There is actually a whole spectrum of options for negotiations.

impossiblefork 2y ago
All these suggestions seem comically unsound. Eastern Europe contains many NATO countries, and many European countries feel an increased rather than decreased need for nuclear weapons. Compensation for losses due to sanctions would also effectively legitimize the war, as if though Russia were in the right. Lifting sanctions could maybe be done, if Russia actually left Ukraine entirely, including Crimea. I think what's really interesting at the moment, at least to me as a European, is a proper war where we simply go in and pound the Russian positions in Ukraine with bombers, strike all sorts of factories, plants, gas conduits, electrical infrastructure etc., in Russia so as to ensure a reasonable outcome. This is a very large and difficult to defend country, relative to its population. The Russians are incredibly vulnerable and increasing the violence level to something more appropriate is the going to be the only alternative. We're planning to borrow money to get weapons. This will be interesting, considering today's interest rates. I think it might be we who must be given something that we can agree is some kind of 'win', rather than the Russians, if the world is to be orderly.
KiwiJohnno 2y ago
The problem is any of those things are effectively a reward for Russia for starting the war and invading Ukraine in the first place. Why should Russia get any advantage out of the war that they 100% started?? And pay them compensation! What a suggestion! Russia is a bully. What do you think will happen if we have to pay the bully off each time they start smashing up their neighbors stuff up or just making threats? And as for withdrawing NATO forces - NATO is a purely defensive organization. Its purpose is to defend against just the sort of shit Russia has pulled with Ukraine. If Ukraine was part of NATO the war would not have happened. NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has been, never will be. This is equivalent to a local crime lord complaining about being threatened by the police station down the road and demanding that the police station shuts down.

motorest 2y ago

> I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, (...) Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country? > and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable. All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave. Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base. Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources. > But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.

arandomusername 2y ago
> Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country? Logistics (Ukraine shares a large border with Russia) and people - the people in currently occupied Ukraine aren't as against Russia as those in Afghanistan may be. Even now, we don't really see much of sabotage. > All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave. And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning. > Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base. While losing hundred of thousands of young men and decimating their population. Russia has more men. They can stand a war of attrition a lot longer - and they value soldier's lives less than we do in the west. > Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources. Similarly, Ukraine is kidnapping people on the streets to send them to the front lines.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Collective defense was always an option. It's not like anyone has the appetite for that, but it's not hard as such to kick Russia out of Ukraine.
  - ponector 2y ago

audunw 2y ago

Of course they can defeat Russia, if they’re tenacious enough. Just look at Afghanistan (against both Russia and USA). If the costs ends up being too high, eventually the attacker loses the will to continue the fight. Russia is running out of equipment. What they have left is in an increasingly bad state. Ukraine’s recent strategy of targeting refineries is working fairly well. Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones.

engineer_22 2y ago
> Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones Source?
- kosten 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/8huHGfY4xYQ?si=VSbvGTVjb2N-qsGq https://youtu.be/8huHGfY4xYQ?si=VSbvGTVjb2N-qsGq
codedokode 2y ago
Afghanistan is an awful example because there was a large number of civilians dead as a result (many times more that foreign soldiers), country having to live through several devastating wars, poverty, and a terrorist group became the government in the end. This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine.
- charlysl 2y ago
  The Taliban are not a terrorist group, awful as they are
- senordevnyc 2y ago
  So the Afghans should have just rolled over for Russia? I wonder if they’d agree.
- motorest 2y ago
  > This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine. The only reason Ukraine is yet to be as worse for civilians as Afghanistan is the fact that Ukraine successfully routed and defeated Russia's initial invasion push. Look at Bucha to see a real world example of what expects Ukraine if they capitulate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre

kranke155 2y ago

It can be (locally) defeated. You can defeat it in wars of choosing, not in a war of annihilation (as Napoleon and others have learnt). But in Crimea? Or the Russo-Japanese War? Or WW1? Whenever the stakes are less than existential, superpowers lose. Saying Russia can't lose is just defeatism. With a few dozen F35s and better capabilities and ammunition, Ukraine would likely have won this war already.

csdreamer7 2y ago

> Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do? Russia can be easily defeated; especially at this point. Their armies are demoralized, their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys), and their budget is running out. The only reason they do not crumble is their sheer size against Ukraine. They would easily be wiped out by a more modern western military. Conservatives in the US now like Russia because they ban LGBT and Europe does not want to pay for a likely 2 year attack and show of force. And don't talk to me about using nuclear weapons against the west. Russia won't use them. They haven't use them for 3 years despite threats to the west if they don't stop funding Ukraine. The second they use them against the west; the west uses them right back. All the money, power, and influence the elites have in Russia disappears. They won't let Putin launch them.

giardini 2y ago
...their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys)... I protest: donkeys are NOT terrible! In fact donkeys are absolutely one of the best means of transport in the Ukraine conflict: donkeys maintain themselves, are loyal to their trainers and are reliable. If you allow them to guide themselves, they will almost always move you away from regions of conflict (i.e., they are self-guided and smart). Furthermore donkeys are by their nature not instruments of war: there are no "attack donkeys" in this or other conflicts. Donkeys are animals of peace. Free a donkey today: send cash to Free the Donkeys 123-rt45 Doskilvi via Kyiv, UKRAINE 79013 (just kidding, but wish I weren't)

justin66 2y ago

> Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory This is only true if we keep Ukraine in an undersupplied state.

ponector 2y ago

Russia cannot be defeated - it is a Putin narrative. Russian has been defeated many times in history. Even in this war Russian lost few battles, lost control of few cities. In fact they are so powerful army, they are using civil vehicles and motorcycle as infantry vehicles for assault. Tanks made in Stalin's era also used. Even donkeys are used for logistics! Cannot be defeated? True, if western countries restrict usage of their weapons against Russian army.

rayiner 2y ago

> I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time. What makes you think that? Historically, Ukraine has been conquered by various countries in the region (Russia, Poland, Lithuania) because of its strategic location. Clearly, western europe doesn’t think that’s true judging by their defense spending.

zippothrowaway 2y ago
> What makes you think that? Becasue Putin has openly talked about how Latvia and Moldova, for example, are part of Russia.
- rayiner 2y ago
  But there’s geographical limits to expansion based on that principle, right? It wouldn’t affect any place that directly affects America? Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care?
  - throw16180339 2y ago
    > Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care? India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. If a conflict between them escalates, then even a limited nuclear exchange would lead to tens of millions of casualties, mass starvation, widespread electronic outages, and releasing millions of tons of black smoke into the atmosphere; crop yields worldwide would be severely reduced. There have been a few studies on a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although as you'd expect, they're mostly from antinuclear advocacy groups. There are many unknown factors and a wide range of estimates, so I'd take all numbers with a grain of salt. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616796/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31616796/ https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/two-billion-at-risk.pdf https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/two-billion-at-ri... There's also an active National Academies study on the environmental effects of nuclear war (https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/independent-study-on-potential-environmental-effects-of-nuclear-war https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/independent-study...), although they haven't released anything yet.

giardini 2y ago

We've burned up Russia's military equipment, we've killed and wounded thousands of Russian soldiers, all ostensibly w/o sending a single USA soldier into combat. The neocons have drained off Russia's conventional firepower and male population for a generation by merely poking the bear repeatedly. The Russians can claim victory but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Russia is now militarily a hollow shell, except for nukes. They're like North Korea but they eat better (they always did, though). Neither of those nations could engage the USA in a conventional conflict for longer than a half hour. This is sometimes termed "victory" or "success", and I don't think its a bad outcome. Of course you can imagine fairy tales where the Russians are abjectly defeated and humiliated and such fairy tales would give you more happy Social Media discussions. But such viewpoints also cause multi-generational problems in peoples of Slavic mindsets who view history as a list of wrongs against their ancestors going back centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/3-years-later-what-russias-aggression-ukraine-has-cost-it-and-what-its-gained https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/3-years-later...

timka 2y ago
Here's an excerpt from The The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters Volume 53, Number 3 (2023) Autumn [1] The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries. With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same number of casualties in two weeks. [1] https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3240&context=parameters https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
timka 2y ago
And another one: The Russia-Ukraine War makes it clear that the electromagnetic signature emitted from the command posts of the past 20 years cannot survive against the pace and precision of an adversary who possesses sensor-based technologies, electronic warfare, and unmanned aerial systems or has access to satellite imagery; this includes nearly every state or nonstate actor the United States might find itself fighting in the near future. The Army must focus on developing command-and-control systems and mobile command posts that enable continuous movement, allow distributed collaboration, and synchronize across all warfighting functions to minimize electronic signature. Ukrainian battalion command posts reportedly consist of seven soldiers who dig in and jump twice daily; while that standard will be hard for the US Army to achieve, it points in a very different direction than the one we have been following for two decades of hardened command posts

whoitwas 2y ago

Can't be defeated? Are you a Russian bot?